Quashed

Sri. C. N. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2019WP/23321/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment concerned a writ petition challenging a Karnataka Administrative Tribunal's order that benefited a detained police inspector. The High Court quashed a corrigendum issued by the reviewing authority modifying a reinstatement and increment order, holding it issued in breach of natural justice due to lack of notice and hearing.

What did the court decide?

The corrigendum dated 09.01.2009 issued by the reviewing authority is set aside. The matter is remanded for reconsideration after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Sri. C. N. Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.23321 OF 2017 (S-KAT)

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

SRI. C.N.RAMESH S/O SHRI. K.NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS POLICE INSPECTOR STATE INTELLIGENCE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 ... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. V.LAKSHMINARAYANA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADV. OF BALAJI ASSOCIATES)

¶12

AND :

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶14

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KARNATAKA STATE NRUPATUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001

¶16

¶17

THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, BY ITS SECRETARY UDYOGA BHAVAN, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. A.C.BALRAJ, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. REUBEN JACOB, ADV. FOR R4)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 3.2.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.4516/2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Petitioner has assailed the order dated 03.02.2017 of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at

¶24

Bengaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short) passed in Application No.4516/2009 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the application filed by the petitioner/applicant in part modifying the government order dated 19.12.2007 and the corrigendum dated 09.01.2009 partly to the effect that the petitioner shall be deemed to have joined duty on 20.02.2008 and entitled to pay and allowances from that date. However, treating the period from 20.11.2003 till 20.02.2008 as dies non and also directed respondent

¶25

¶26

no.3 to issue an appropriate order in this regard, within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

¶27

The petitioner joined services of the Department of Police as Police Sub-Inspector on 10.08.1994. On charges of assaulting some persons, the Deputy Commissioner conducted a preliminary inquiry and the petitioner was placed under suspension. On the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, respondent no.3 issued a show cause notice and the respondentauthorities passed an order of dismissal against the petitioner as a measure of penalty on 20.11.2003 against which the petitioner preferred Application No.1104/2004 before the Tribunal questioning the order of dismissal and the said application came to be disposed of on 05.07.2004 to exhaust the alternative remedy available to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 25 of the Police Act, 1963 before respondent no.2. The said appeal also came to be rejected. Subsequently, the petitioner challenged the order of dismissal by preferring application

¶28

¶29

No.3807/2005 before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the application before the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the respondents which came to be disposed of, by respondent no.1 and reinstatement order was passed on 15.06.2007. It was ordered on 19.12.2007 as treating suspension period as suspension only by withholding three years of increment by the reviewing authority. On 09.01.2009, nearly after 1½ years of passing of the order by the reviewing authority, a corrigendum was issued by respondent no.1 treating the period between the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement as dies non. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred application No.4516/2009 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 03.02.2017, has allowed the said application in part as aforesaid. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶30

Learned Senior Counsel Sri V.Lakshminarayana representing the petitioner would contend that the reviewing authority has no power to modify the order dated 19.12.2007 by way of corrigendum that too after 1½ years of passing of the order. The office of the

¶31

¶32

reviewing authority has become functus officio after passing of the order on 19.12.2007 i.e., there is no power of review vested with the disciplinary authority to analyse the penalty of punishment. In the absence of no such powers, unilateral decision taken by the reviewing authority is without jurisdiction and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the benefits flowing under the order dated 19.12.2007 has been taken away by the corrigendum dated 09.01.2009. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate these vital aspects in a right perspective and proceeded to give a different interpretation finally disturbing the rights accrued to the petitioner by virtue of the order dated 19.12.2007.

¶33

Per contra, the learned AGA appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3 would contend that the corrigendum is only clarificatory in nature issued in terms of Rule 99(5) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (‘the Rules’ for short). It is contemplated that in cases falling under sub-rule (4), the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension proceeding

¶34

¶35

dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement as the case may be, shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose. The review authority had exercised the power under Section 99(4) of the Rules wherein the order of dismissal challenged was considered. In such circumstances, the suspension period has to be necessarily treated as a period not spent on duty and the same has been clarified as dies non for the period from 20.11.2003 till the date of reinstatement of the petitioner into service. There is no arbitrariness in issuing the corrigendum as alleged. Such power is very well vested with the reviewing authority and the same cannot be held to be without jurisdiction.

¶36

We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶37

The fulcrum in dispute revolves around the corrigendum issued by the reviewing authority on

¶38

¶39

09.01.2009 to clause (2) of the order dated 19.12.2007. It is ex-facie apparent that after passing of the order on 19.12.2007, the reviewing authority has proceeded to make certain corrections to the order that too after 1½ years of passing of the original order. Even if any such power is vested with the reviewing authority, it was obligatory on the part of the reviewing authority to issue a notice before making any corrections in the order dated 19.12.2007. Any corrections made to the order which has reached finality cannot be made unilaterally and at the back of the petitioner sans providing an opportunity of hearing. The said corrigendum being in breach of the principles of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned corrigendum and to remand the matter to the reviewing authority to reconsider the same in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

¶40

The corrigendum dated 09.01.2009 at AnnexureA16 is set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the reviewing authority-respondent no.1 to reconsider the

¶41

¶42

matter after providing an opportunity to the petitioner

¶43

and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶44

All the rights and contentions of the parties are left

¶45

open including the power of the reviewing authority.

¶46

The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of above.

¶47

In view of disposal of the writ petition, all pending

¶48

I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.

¶49

Sd/- JUDGE

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

hkh.

Sri. C. N. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. C. N. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. N Lakshmidevi Vs Smt.Huchamma

Smt Ramakka Vs Smt. Thanamma Since Deceased by Legal Heir

Smt Shruthi Vs Instant Transport

The Branch Manager Vs Smt. Shruthi

Sri. Shridhara Acharya Vs Mr Dinesh R K